USADA - Armstrong

[TubularBills]

Sparks did refer to stinking fish.

Unfortunately that comment was directed at USADA, not the Armstrong shenanigans:

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, said yesterday the agency’s notice to Armstrong about doping violations lacks specific allegations that would allow Armstrong to mount a “meaningful response.” He said five people accused of doping violations along with Armstrong aren’t American or U.S. competitors and questioned lawyers for the agency, whose allegations go back 12 years, why it waited so long.

“I’m not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish,” Sparks said. “Were you so busy, year after year?”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-10/armstrong-seeks-to-block-anti-doping-agency-s-arbitration

 

[rickshaw]

840 pages of posts?

I think threads should be automatically archived at 1000 posts or less. They degenerate into useless nothingness by that time, and anything worth reading gets hopelessly buried. sigh

 

[Ripper]

Pat's letter to Howman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat-Pat-Letter-to-Howman
Pat's letter to Bock
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat-Pat-Letter-to-Bock

It is now clear that BPC is Pat McQuaid

Wow
.........

 

[thehog]

I think threads should be automatically archived at 1000 posts or less. They degenerate into useless nothingness by that time, and anything worth reading gets hopelessly buried. sigh

The legal thread was created by MarkW yet he refuses to use it. I agree. Move the legal talk to then alternate thread and leave this open for "open" discussion on the case.

 

[QuickStepper]

What are you talking about? If the UCI does not follow an USADA ruling they are in breach of the WADA code. That means all sports organized by the UCI are ineligeble for the olympics.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

A serious question: Let's say UCI chooses to ignore any USADA sanctions imposed on Bruyneel, Armstrong, etc. If UCI is then, as you say, in breach of the WADA Code, is the sanction for that against UCI (and its member federations) and does it extend down to any individual rider who participates in a UCI-sanctioned event? Or would each country be entitled to form its own new cycling federation and send riders as part of such delegations who have not been individually sanctioned or convicted of doping violations? Would riders who participate in UCI-sanctioned races still be able to race in the Olympics, assuming an alternate Olympic cycling structure was set up and organized?

If the IOC says to UCI "Cycling is out of the Olympics" will anyone really care? Booting baseball out of the Olympics has not really hurt the growth of the game, either in the U.S. or nationally, and as some may know, there's a movement for a true "world championship" tournament in baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic, something that cycling and the UCI could easily replicate (of course there already are world championships in cycling).

What would prevent UCI and the rest of the national federations from just saying to IOC, "the hell with you."

 

[MarkvW]

A serious question: Let's say UCI chooses to ignore any USADA sanctions imposed on Bruyneel, Armstrong, etc. If UCI is then, as you say, in breach of the WADA Code, is the sanction for that against UCI (and its member federations) and does it extend down to any individual rider who participates in a UCI-sanctioned event? Or would each country be entitled to form its own new cycling federation and send riders as part of such delegations who have not been individually sanctioned or convicted of doping violations? Would riders who participate in UCI-sanctioned races still be able to race in the Olympics, assuming an alternate Olympic cycling structure was set up and organized?

If the IOC says to UCI "Cycling is out of the Olympics" will anyone really care? Booting baseball out of the Olympics has not really hurt the growth of the game, either in the U.S. or nationally, and as some may know, there's a movement for a true "world championship" tournament in baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic, something that cycling and the UCI could easily replicate (of course there already are world championships in cycling).

What would prevent UCI and the rest of the national federations from just saying to IOC, "the hell with you."

People have suggested that the UCI has a financial interest in being a part of the Olympic Movement that it cannot afford to lose. Nobody has examined that argument closely.

 

[avanti]

"I believe"...is where you choose to ignore some probable emerging truths; a common failure of "faith".
............................................

I stand corrected. "I believe" was the wrong term. What I meant was "I would not be surpised if .............."

Apart from that wouldn't ASO have a say or final say who the ultimate TDF winners are?

 

[poupou]

What are you talking about? If the UCI does not follow an USADA ruling they are in breach of the WADA code. That means all sports organized by the UCI are ineligeble for the olympics.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Yes, you are right.

It seems that I have read something much different of what you have written. I should have been distracted while reading.

Sorry for my mistake.

 

[Velodude]

A serious question: Let's say UCI chooses to ignore any USADA sanctions imposed on Bruyneel, Armstrong, etc. If UCI is then, as you say, in breach of the WADA Code, is the sanction for that against UCI (and its member federations) and does it extend down to any individual rider who participates in a UCI-sanctioned event? Or would each country be entitled to form its own new cycling federation and send riders as part of such delegations who have not been individually sanctioned or convicted of doping violations? Would riders who participate in UCI-sanctioned races still be able to race in the Olympics, assuming an alternate Olympic cycling structure was set up and organized?

If the IOC says to UCI "Cycling is out of the Olympics" will anyone really care? Booting baseball out of the Olympics has not really hurt the growth of the game, either in the U.S. or nationally, and as some may know, there's a movement for a true "world championship" tournament in baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic, something that cycling and the UCI could easily replicate (of course there already are world championships in cycling).

What would prevent UCI and the rest of the national federations from just saying to IOC, "the hell with you."

In 2004 the UCI were one of the last two sports, other being association football (soccer), to sign up to the WADA Code.

Not signing would have excluded cycling from the Olympics in 2004.

It is worthy of note the UCI caved in after the 2004 TdF and just before the 2004 Olympics. Verbruggen claims for the tardiness was that he was under enormous pressure from the pro cyclists that they would breakaway and form a rogue pro association if cycling signed up to the WADA Code.

WADA and the Code had no presence at the 2004 TdF but did in 2005. LA retired after one year of WADA intervention in 2005.

The same reasons that forced the UCI to sign up are the same reasons that UCI cannot exist in its present form without Olympic participation.

It is not just road cycling that would be affected but track, MTB, BMX and Paralympic.

New international federations would be formed to gain Olympic participation and receipts would be substantially reduced for the UCI to run its operation on the present scale.

 

[python]

If the UCI and Armstrong were on the same team, then the UCI would be involved in Armstrong's lawsuit right now.

The UCI is allied with Armstrong's team, but it is not a part of Armstrong's team. The UCI has to worry about the Olympics--Armstrong doesn't have the slightest care about the Olympics.

this post by you shows how very little you understand the gaming/tactical side of the ongoing case.

Armstrong has more dirt to further string the uci to his cause .
Whilst uci can only follow his lawyers lead at this point to avoid more exposure, all armstrong has to do is set the lead. Cycling's fate at the Olympics is too far removed from the immediate CURRENT game to matter.

The uci and armstrong are intertwined by the common existential future.

That the 2 are playing different tactical fiddles for the team is too obvious.

 

[Irish2009]

The UCI not being allowed to be involved in the Olympics would have a backlash. For example the GB team's exclusion would see its lottery funding cut to near nothing, this would be devastating for the sport in Britan and one which might see British cycling ally to a different organisation if that different organisation became recognised by the IOC. It would however take more than the Olympic exclusion to see the UCI implode. As long as the UCI could maintain its hold over the pro scene then it could survive, however if major pro races aligned with the new organisation the tide could change very rapidly against them and they would become a non entity. As they say competition improves the breed.

 

[MarkvW]

this post by you shows how very little you understand the gaming/tactical side of the ongoing case.

Armstrong has more dirt to further string the uci to his cause .
Whilst uci can only follow his lawyers lead at this point to avoid more exposure, all armstrong has to do is set the lead. Cycling's fate at the Olympics is too far removed from the immediate CURRENT game to matter.

The uci and armstrong are intertwined by the common existential future.

That the 2 are playing different tactical fiddles for the team is too obvious.

This post by you shows how very little you understand the strategic side of the ongoing process.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So it sounds like a game of chicken, and it doesn't look to me like the USADA is flinching. No reason they should. This isn't about a vendetta. This is about an athlete and the fact that he doped. It really is that simple.

The fact that a bunch of ****ing yellow bracelets and a bunch of people's taint being chaffed because they believed in a complete fraud is causing this much drama further proves that Kimmage was right when he called Armstrong a "cancer" to cycling.

 

[TubularBills]

this post by you shows how very little you understand the gaming/tactical side of the ongoing case.

Armstrong has more dirt to further string the uci to his cause .
Whilst uci can only follow his lawyers lead at this point to avoid more exposure, all armstrong has to do is set the lead. Cycling's fate at the Olympics is too far removed from the immediate CURRENT game to matter.

The uci and armstrong are intertwined by the common existential future.

That the 2 are playing different tactical fiddles for the team is too obvious.

Good points, but it seems they both have everything to lose.

I wonder if the UCI has considered a preemptive 1st strike, find a couple of boxes of misplaced evidence... Out Armstrong and when he retaliates label it sour grapes, the desperate grasping at straws.

"UCI conspiracy you must be kidding!"

They only both fall if they stick together.

 

[JA.Tri]

I stand corrected. "I believe" was the wrong term. What I meant was "I would not be surpised if .............."

Apart from that wouldn't ASO have a say or final say who the ultimate TDF winners are?

IMO... I am guessing this will end up in front of CAS.

If so...and CAS supports USADA's view then:

CAS could determine the penalties. This would include:

dates of disqualification
financial penalties/repayments
loss of titles/palmares modification.

 

[python]

This post by you shows how very little you understand the strategic side of the ongoing process.

this post by you shows that you fail to appreciate the complicity of the uci both tactical and and your own invented uci strategy. Both are one at this point. That you fail to
See it, makes one wonder is it intentional or something more prosaic.

 

[thehog]

this post by you shows how very little you understand the gaming/tactical side of the ongoing case.

Armstrong has more dirt to further string the uci to his cause .
Whilst uci can only follow his lawyers lead at this point to avoid more exposure, all armstrong has to do is set the lead. Cycling's fate at the Olympics is too far removed from the immediate CURRENT game to matter.

The uci and armstrong are intertwined by the common existential future.

That the 2 are playing different tactical fiddles for the team is too obvious.

Perhaps Pat & counsel deliberately wrote those letters so poorly so Sparks would rule against? Leaving Armstromg alone to face arbritration.

This is USADA v Lance. The UCI can do nothing if they shall choose. That's what they did methinks.

End of the day Lance's loses titles. UCI loses nothing.

 

[JRTinMA]

This post by you shows how very little you understand the strategic side of the ongoing process.

this post by you shows that you fail to appreciate the complicity of the uci both tactical and and your own invented uci strategy. Both are one at this point. That you fail to
See it, makes one wonder is it intentional.

Both these posts demonstrate that the input of a google trained scientist and a google educated lawyer add no value. Please take it to PM.

 

[thehog]

Both these posts demonstrate that the input of a google trained scientist and a google educated lawyer add no value. Please take it to PM.

Thanks JRT. I agree.

 

[mewmewmew13]

One only has to look at the way the Shleck debacle(s) were handled and playing hide & seek at the ToC to note the guy is 2 cans short of a 6 pack.

He's been anything but normal all year.

Income is drying up. Fast.

Lol
He was definitely playing the "where's Waldo " during the ToC time.
...or 'whack-a-mole'.

two cans short is about right

 

[QuickStepper]

In 2004 the UCI were one of the last two sports, other being association football (soccer), to sign up to the WADA Code.

Not signing would have excluded cycling from the Olympics in 2004.

It is worthy of note the UCI caved in after the 2004 TdF and just before the 2004 Olympics. Verbruggen claims for the tardiness was that he was under enormous pressure from the pro cyclists that they would breakaway and form a rogue pro association if cycling signed up to the WADA Code.

WADA and the Code had no presence at the 2004 TdF but did in 2005. LA retired after one year of WADA intervention in 2005.

The same reasons that forced the UCI to sign up are the same reasons that UCI cannot exist in its present form without Olympic participation.

It is not just road cycling that would be affected but track, MTB, BMX and Paralympic.

New international federations would be formed to gain Olympic participation and receipts would be substantially reduced for the UCI to run its operation on the present scale.

VD: I appreciate the historical context. I agree that the UCI could not continue to exist in its present form. But who is to say it could not exist in an altered format, without Olympics participation at all.

And again, my question is if a rider or team of professional riders chose to race under UCI-sanctioning (with the UCI not a participant in Olympic sport) why would this ipso facto serve as a ban on those riders from participating in the Olympics under a different aegis.

After all, if the riders rode for differently constituted national federations in the Olympics (and were tested clean), why should they not be permitted to, during the rest of their careers, race wherever and whenever they were permitted to do so.

And someone above also noted that GB cycling couldn't exist without participation in the Olympics. Um, ok. If GB was still permitted to select a national team and participate in the Olympics, because that national team was part of some newly constituted NGB that agreed it would adhere to the WADA Code, does that also necessarily mean that the riders would not also be able to participate in a different structure the other 90% of their careers, one goverened by a restructured UCI that would not be bound to the WADA Code?

Just saying that under the current rules, it is clear that everything is mutually dependent upon and conditioned upon WADA compliance. But it may not have to be that way in the future, if a new professional structure and racing governing body is formed and a majority of teams and riders agree to go such route. .

 

[python]

Good points, but it seems they both have everything to lose.

I hear you, but usada stands to lose ONLY if it plays Armstrong imposed game.

So far there is little evidence they do or will.

USADA's first priority is to get through the federal courts imposed up on them.

They know they hold the winning hand but when you face feds, you have to be patient.

Then, there is the uci crappie they have to deal with.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Perhaps Pat & counsel deliberately wrote those letters so poorly so Sparks would rule against? Leaving Armstromg alone to face arbritration.

This is USADA v Lance. The UCI can do nothing if they shall choose. That's what they did methinks.

End of the day Lance's loses titles. UCI loses nothing.

True, the UCI could just try to back out of it and fade away, but what I don't see is how armstrong would possibly go down with out dragging UCI into this and making certain they also go down.

 

[MarkvW]

True, the UCI could just try to back out of it and fade away, but what I don't see is how armstrong would possibly go down with out dragging UCI into this and making certain they also go down.

How far is the UCI going to follow Armstrong? That is the big question.

 

[python]

Both these posts demonstrate that the input of a google trained scientist and a google educated lawyer add no value. Please take it to PM.

this post does not require Google -just use the search of the Site - to trace the author back to his own statement that he will gloat when armstrong will beat the odds and that he is mysteriously sitting on the fence about armstrong doping. There it is.